Let's suppose that it costs 6 cents per hour to rent video content. Now let's suppose that everything that's not pay-per-view already on cable is available at this rate. A lot of cable services are in the ballpark of $25-$50 per month. How many hours of video would this get you? 416-833 hours of video per month. That's 13-27 hours PER DAY. Count me in! This would save us all so much on our cable bills... here's to a $10 or less monthly video service bill thanks to this rate someday.
One more. The very fact that anyone is willing to pay for something proves by virtue of how a money-based economy works that the item is in fact a scarce (valuable) resource, and therefore that its theft is a crime of monetary significance. I am not condoning ridiculous fines on internet file sharing, but I think if you share something for free OR generate money on something that is supposed to be free, you should be liable for that amount of money in damages.
Furthermore, all this nonsense about copyright being restrictive is really about taking the rights of the creators away from them. If anything created was automatically in the public domain for anyone to use for anything they want, then all content creators would no longer have any exclusive to their own works. Know this: the only way for that to work would be in a world without money. If we had the "star trek" style no money world, where there were no longer scarce resources with respect to food, shelter, items, etc. then it would be no big deal to call everything created by anyone public domain. However, as long as someone can generate "revenue" as defined by our monetary-based economy from your products, you are legally entitled to a share of that revenue, unless you waive that right. You are able to waive that right, but it is your choice, not someone else's. If someone else wants to take something from me without my permission, that is stealing, end of story.
Let me explain this one more time. Copyright law and Creative Commons licenses are supposed to specifically protect against this case -- where someone else is profiting directly from your work without giving you the money. This is theft, plain and simple. How in the world would it be ok for someone to charge money for something that you provide for free, and for them to not pay you when it's your product? They're stealing your rights. Just because you elect to give your product away, that doesn't automatically grant the right for any random person to distribute your product. How would it? Unless you say, "here, take this and give it to anyone you want or charge them for it", then you have not waived that right.
Innovation may not be in the idea itself, but it certainly requires the idea. Hard work alone does not "generate" innovation from nothing. I read through the 5 innovative qualities, and they are correct in the same way that one can say "all it takes to be the greatest baseball player ever is to hit the ball every time". Easier said than done... one thing that they failed to mention is that true innovation comes from knowing when to abandon/revise a crappy idea in order to get a great idea. A great innovator can do this process incredibly fast. By rapidly cranking out good ideas and hooking them together intelligently, the best innovators are like "magic profit engines" to companies that actively support and fund their efforts. That's another thing about innovation, it is very easy to stifle and very hard to support for companies that lack a crystal clear vision and appreciation for the value of innovation. Most companies do not understand its value at all, nor do they care to. It's cheaper for them up front to just slog along; even large companies often choose to buy innovations rather than generate them.
Obviously they mean discussions like, "hey guys, get your pirated files at (some specific URL address)." Imagine how hard it is to police that. And no, you can't just take people's stuff that they are selling and post it for your friends to get for free. If you want to give away stuff, make your own stuff and give it away... my guess is after all your own personal hard work, you won't feel so comfortable when people are taking your stuff (unless you intended to give it away, which is your right alone as yes! the copyright holder).
The RIAA and major labels want success for nothing, and it just doesn't work that way. This guy proves that a lot of really hard work generally equals success in any environment. He made it work through perseverance, not some kind of trick to gyp people out of money.
Consider the size of the Internet, and the amount of unused server capacity in existence today. Assuming that each server farm had a backup of the next one over, and assuming each could replicate the other site's DNS, etc. couldn't the Internet survive intact on a failure of any size at any single datacenter? I think zero downtime will be a unifying concern of enough ISP's, datacenter and farm providers for them to all team up and give each other that backup support at some point in the future.
IMHO, the true savings of solid-state would be in the lack of moving parts that could fail vs. some speed increase. If a robust solid-state HDD, power supply, etc. could be built so that the pc had absolutely no moving parts, that should yield a much longer shelf life, meaning a much lower total cost of ownership if you have 100,000 of them in a datacenter, right?
Google is not stupid, they are going to get patents on whatever they need to in order to offer 'mutual assured destruction' protection for themselves against Microsoft and the other patent heavy hitters. 'Mutual assured destruction' for patents means that in a tough negotiation with a company like Microsoft, one could expect to hear the phrase:
"We have patents on your XYZ technology, so you better agree to our terms or we'll get you."
The other company has to be able to say "well, we have patents on your YZW technology, so agree to meet us in the middle or we'll get you."
They meet in the middle, and everyone's happy. Without patent protection, the bigger of the two can clobber the other one on any sort of deals.
Apparently there's a giant rift that has opened up between "what everyone wants copyright to mean" and "what copyright actually means". If you wrote something yourself, it is automatically copyrighted. A copyright refers to your right to protect something you wrote as your own, meaning someone else cannot just take your work and call it theirs. Moreover, they cannot reproduce the work that you made by taking it from you without your permission. Does this entitle you to royalties? Only if you get them to agree to sign a contract for royalties. If they don't sign and you don't want to give them your work, they do not have the right to take it. Them's the breaks, folks. Of course, they can always come up with their own version of whatever it is (a copyright is not a patent). As long as they didn't take yours, your copyright is protected.
If you sign a work contract or are employed to produce creative works, you will have trouble asserting a separate copyright contract against your employer for works created while "on the clock" and with company resources. However, this doesn't mean that your copyright is not still there. I have signed these types of contracts in order to hand over copyright on certain very specific things, so that implies that without the contract, I could still lay claim to those things. (It almost certainly wouldn't be worth the legal costs unless millions of my money were at stake).
Copyright does not mean that someone can write "select *" (this is not a valid SQL query anyhow) as this would likely fall under the exemption made for titles. Just as you cannot copyright the title to a book, you probably cannot assert a copyright over a single, uncreative sentence. Yes, creativity is objective enough that in any legal case, some "crappy" poem will still hold up as "creative" while "select *" will not. The purpose of copyright is not to prevent anyone from using some phrase (that's a trademark) but foremost copyright is to protect published works that are generating lots of money from being ripped off and stolen from their creators, with no compensation to the creator for their work.
Copyright doesn't apply to creatively "transformed works", especially if attribution is already given and the transformations noted. So, if you take a massive SQL query and have to apply a creative new fix to it for something, your new version qualifies for its own copyright separate from the original copyright. That's right, now there are two copyrights: the one for the original author on the original work, and your new copyright on the "creatively transformed work". Creative transformation only applies in the case of a reasonable-sized transformation, meaning you can't just paraphrase someone, that's still plagiarism.
Any day now, a 100% independent artist will release an album of hit songs and totally circumvent this system. When this happens, the labels will completely freak out and try to steal the music or pull shenanigans, at which point the artist will sue them out of existence. Just keep digging deeper, folks.
By the way, did Elvis write any of his songs? Would he have been turned down at open mic night because of some stupid attitude about singing original songs? What do these folks think of: American Idol, the "Rock Band" game, etc.?
It's not that infinite good should be shared necessarily, but because they are not scarce, there is no physical penalty for sharing them in the way that one loses a physical item when one shares it. Therefore, given an infinite timeline, all infinite goods will be shared between everyone because there's no penalty to society as a whole in terms of haves vs. have-nots for doing so.
Impersonating a police officer is a serious crime under any circumstances. At the very least, it amounts to documented fraud -- the easiest kind to prosecute, once you can positively I.D. the person who posted the fraud (and that's pretty easy with digital forensics).
Violent video games are an issue because in the games, the violence is the solution to the game's obstacles. This is behavior you don't want kids to emulate.
Music video games are an issue because in the game, NOT creating music is the solution to the game's obstacles. This (NOT creating music) is behavior you don't want kids to emulate (i.e. you want kids TO create music or at least to value the creation of music).
To address the article heading, you cannot copyright "titles" of any kind. A phrase or word can be trademarked and used as a title that way for protection, but there does not exist any protection over "titles". Can you copyright homework assignments? Of course, anything uniquely produced by a person has an automatic copyright on it. One could argue that teachers should condone abuse of copyrights of their works, but that doesn't mean the teachers have to condone it. Until copyright is wiped out, it is the law.